Drawing on the concept of implicit religion and psychological type theory: shaping a cathedral congregation survey and listening to diverse voices
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conceptualising cathedrals as welcoming spaces that soften the boundaries between common ground and sacred space, the present paper tests the thesis that a rich account of participants’ experience of a cathedral Sunday Choral Eucharist can be facilitated by intentionally engaging each of the four psychological functions identified by psychological type theory: sensing, intuition, feeling, and thinking (SIFT). Of the 139 participants who completed a quantitative survey during the service in the Anglican cathedral in Liverpool, 81 also addressed the qualitative section that posed four questions designed to access each of the cognitive functions. The sensing function provided rich description, the intuitive function forged links and insights, the feeling function engaged the human heart, and the thinking function analysed the implications and voiced the criticisms. The SIFT approach can be commended for further application in cathedral studies and more widely.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it